Mormons ?

[philv]

Having been Mormon and now not, I see what you are saying from both sides. It is true, there is an isolationism mindset. They will tell you it is not true, but then they are taught they have the “truth” and everyone else is being lead astray by Satan, so it foments distrust. My immediate family is the only non-Mormons on my side. When I announced my departure, I was censored - I was literally told to keep it to myself. Now they talk about Mormonism to a greater degree and I am expected to hold my tongue. As converts tend to do, I am on fire with love for The Lord and His church, but am incapable of addressing my family. It is a level of frustration that is quite irritating, particularly around holidays when I see them more. I keep drafting letters (which I never send) hoping to show them my life, me as a person, their two-faced attitudes, but I wave off as it turns into a novel. Some Mormons may not know their theology to the degree you’ve just read here, the “deeper” stuff mentioned above does not get a lot of press. That is sad also that you can’t hold a very effective conversation with most, cause the buck stops at their “testimony” - the subjective personal conviction that they are members of the “true” church. When facts, logic, reason, any of God’s gifts dispute/distract from their conviction, they will hit the “I Believe” button and claim you need to have faith, it’ll all make sense on the other side.

I agree - I grew up in the Seventh-day Adventist church, and my parents came from the United Church of God (a split of many of Armstrong’s old Church of God), who believe in the same thing: “If you’re not with us and the truth we found, you are questioning eternal life.” But they’re a split, saying the same thing. But then I found out they’re just all Protestant churches and I could date when they were started, and it’s much after 33 A.D. when Christ said he would build “his” church, but all the Protestant teachers I’ve known started mostly 1927+ A.D. Hundreds spring up overnight. The apostles said “listen to our traditions.” It made me realize I wanted to go to the source of the church. I never thought it was Catholic until I started humbly studying our Christian heritage though. It was tough to make that move, especially with family saying I’m going to hell if I leave “x” church with the only truth! Where was the truth before 1927? /end rant. What a long journey though.

The family still has a hard time listening to my (name removed by moderator)ut when it comes to biblical discussions. Different religion than Mormons, but still the same behavior against “outsiders.” Though one thing I’m comforted with is a house divided will not stand.

 

[dronald]

Yesterday, I was talking to an LDS friend of mine who is 86 years old. We have been friends now for over 40 years.

I said to her, after all we are all Christians, so I could see her response. She said no, LDS are above and beyond Christianity. They are the true believers, and for many years she was instructed to say they were not Christian, but LDS. I asked why then now, LDS want to be referred to as Christians, and she said it was because they feel they would not face so much discrimination that way.

Just thought that was an interesting idea from her.

What was Paul trying to persuade Agrippa to be then? (Acts 26:28-29)

What about at Antioch? (Acts 11:26)

 

[batman1973]

D&C was written after the scriptures were written though, so it’s a man-made protestant teaching. I’m not saying that to argue because I come from a Seventh-day Adventist protesatnt church myself, but even Ellen White had her own interpretation that was "wo"man-made. She’s just as much a protestant teacher as Smith was: not lower, not higher. I had to look at what came before Ellen White, before the protestant reformation, .

Woah, woah. Mormon teaching is NOT protestant. Please do not confuse them. I won’t speak for the SDA, but as a former member of 4 Latter Day Saint faiths, I can say with clarity, they are not Protestant.

 

[boomerang]

Yesterday, I was talking to an LDS friend of mine who is 86 years old. We have been friends now for over 40 years.

I said to her, after all we are all Christians, so I could see her response. She said no, LDS are above and beyond Christianity. They are the true believers, and for many years she was instructed to say they were not Christian, but LDS. I asked why then now, LDS want to be referred to as Christians, and she said it was because they feel they would not face so much discrimination that way.

Just thought that was an interesting idea from her.

I’ve noticed that about the Mormons. They used to say they are not Christian, but now they say they are. Unless they changed their basic theology, they are still not Christian, they are just being dishonest with this new “Christian” angle. Being dishonest is worse than just being out with it and saying that they are not Christian.

 

[philv]

Woah, woah. Mormon teaching is NOT protestant. Please do not confuse them. I won’t speak for the SDA, but as a former member of 4 Latter Day Saint faiths, I can say with clarity, they are not Protestant.

Well, Smith came from a Protestant background:

Wikipedia of all truth:
Smith became interested in religion at about the age of twelve, and he participated in church classes, read the Bible, and reportedly showed an interest in Methodism.[8] With his family, he also took part in religious folk magic, a common practice at the time.[9] Like many people of that era, both his parents and his maternal grandfather reportedly had visions or dreams that they believed communicated messages from God.[10] Because of the religious divisions in his family and community, Smith was conflicted about the benefit of organized religion, saying that he had become concerned for the welfare of his soul but was confused by competing religious denominations.[11]

So it’s just another novice flock offspring with Protestantism roots that shaped his new ideas. Ellen White came from a Protestant background too and had her own offspring idea because her father failed to prophecy Christ’s coming correctly. Like Smith, White had conflicting visions than his. It’s all the same. It’s still Protestantism at its roots, even if they geared off in another direction.

But I think the word ‘protestantism’ is also confusing. It’s only used by the Catholic church to define those who did protest against the church in the 1600’s. So everyone after them have just been offpsrings that have protestantism roots. Generally today, we just use the term to say anyone not catholic and are still trying to separate themselves with knowledge or without.

 

[kimg901]

There is no difficulty here. God is precisely as he has appeared to every person who has ever seen him, an exaulted, perfected, person.

In my vision (1st one), God did not have an earthly body. He was a brilliant light (and the colors that radiated from it, well I can not tell you because they were not of this earth). His voice was like a roaring ocean but soft. So tell me how many people have seen God in an earthly form Jan? Your prophet smith maybe? Just that 1? And how many versions are there of smiths vision?

 

[ggarcia19]

my feelings gat hurt when I read the book of Mormon, I gat to chapter 13 and felt a sense of racism so I had to ask them to stop coming to my house, I even quit my job because the company (pest control) was owned by Mormons. I no longer want to support them in anything unless they are leaving there church…

 

[LivingWaters7]

There is no difficulty here. God is precisely as he has appeared to every person who has ever seen him, an exaulted, perfected, person.

However the Lectures on Faith seem to not teach Joseph Smith’s later teaching that the Father is an exalted man. It states that the Father is a “personage of Spirit” (and makes a distinction between that and the Son being a “personage of tabernacle”). Many Latter-day Saints make the First Vision into a theological revelation, where the true nature of God the Father and Jesus Christ, as two separate, embodied, entities, was revealed. However, it seems as if Joseph Smith was not aware of the flesh and bone character of God until later (as well, the Lectures on Faith refer to the Godhead in a Binitarian fashion, with the Holy Ghost being the “mind” of the Father and Son).

eom.byu.edu/index.php/Lectures_on_Faith

 

[KendraM]

However the Lectures on Faith seem to not teach Joseph Smith’s later teaching that the Father is an exalted man. It states that the Father is a “personage of Spirit” (and makes a distinction between that and the Son being a “personage of tabernacle”). Many Latter-day Saints make the First Vision into a theological revelation, where the true nature of God the Father and Jesus Christ, as two separate, embodied, entities, was revealed. However, it seems as if Joseph Smith was not aware of the flesh and bone character of God until later (as well, the Lectures on Faith refer to the Godhead in a Binitarian fashion, with the Holy Ghost being the “mind” of the Father and Son).

eom.byu.edu/index.php/Lectures_on_Faith

Here are also some LDS scripture with contradictions:
God as a Spirit: Alma 18:26-28; 22:8-11
9 And the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem?

10 And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he created all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this?

11 And he said: Yea, I believe that the Great Spirit created all things, and I desire that ye should tell me concerning all these things, and I will believe thy words.

God has a Body: Doctrine and Covenants 130:22
22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

 

[batman1973]

Well, Smith came from a Protestant background:

Wikipedia of all truth:
Smith became interested in religion at about the age of twelve, and he participated in church classes, read the Bible, and reportedly showed an interest in Methodism.[8] With his family, he also took part in religious folk magic, a common practice at the time.[9] Like many people of that era, both his parents and his maternal grandfather reportedly had visions or dreams that they believed communicated messages from God.[10] Because of the religious divisions in his family and community, Smith was conflicted about the benefit of organized religion, saying that he had become concerned for the welfare of his soul but was confused by competing religious denominations.[11]

So it’s just another novice flock offspring with Protestantism roots that shaped his new ideas. Ellen White came from a Protestant background too and had her own offspring idea because her father failed to prophecy Christ’s coming correctly. Like Smith, White had conflicting visions than his. It’s all the same. It’s still Protestantism at its roots, even if they geared off in another direction.

But I think the word ‘protestantism’ is also confusing. It’s only used by the Catholic church to define those who did protest against the church in the 1600’s. So everyone after them have just been offpsrings that have protestantism roots. Generally today, we just use the term to say anyone not catholic and are still trying to separate themselves with knowledge or without.

NO NO AND NO! First off, Wikipedia is not your friend. Secondly, once Joseph Smith claimed that
Joseph Smith:

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

(Joseph Smith’s History.)
It’s this fallacious statement that separates him from Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. He created a new “church” out of whole cloth. He added to and took away from Sacred Scripture, he added new books to support his doctrine(D&C and the Pearl of Great Price) He made something entirely different, with no Protestant teachings.

 

[jadamo]

Mormonism started off Protestant. His claim that God the Father told him not to join any current church is his excuse, his “authority”, to start a new church, which would be more “correct” than any other denomination at the time. (I truly don’t believe he saw God or Jesus, to have this “vision” in 1820 and not say anything about it until 1832 doesn’t sound right to me).

However, the moment Smith denied the Trinitarian nature of God, and began to teach that God had a body with flesh and bones, he created his own religion which can’t be classified as Protestant.

 

[Janderich]

In my vision (1st one), God did not have an earthly body. He was a brilliant light (and the colors that radiated from it, well I can not tell you because they were not of this earth). His voice was like a roaring ocean but soft. So tell me how many people have seen God in an earthly form Jan? Your prophet smith maybe? Just that 1? And how many versions are there of smiths vision?

Sounds like you had an amazing experience. There have been some that have seen the Father, Joseph Smith being one. There have been others, some given in the Bible, but I suspect their discriptions will be rejected. Many more have seen the Son who is the express image of the Father (Heb 1:3).

 

[7_Sorrows]

Mormons are taught there was a great apostasy after Christ and the apostles died (a total and complete falling away). They are taught they have the only true church and priesthood authority from Christ that was restored through the prophet Joseph Smith. They teach that the apostles Peter, James, and John appeared to Smith and gave him the authority. They teach that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate beings. Joesph Smith taught that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones and is a glorified being. Now that I’ve listened to other Christians, I see I am not a Christian. I was given a totally distorted idea of God and Jesus. Now I find out Jesus is God incarnate. There never was a pre-mortal life. Much of what we were taught creates distrust and inability to become close to those outside the church.

Joseph Smith was the first prophet in this dispensation since the restoration of the true church, to Mormons. Since him there is a continuing line of prophets just like there is a line of popes (but of course the popes never had a break since the time of Christ). The current prophet is Thomas S. Monson.

Yep, and there is the planet thing too. This is all the deep doctrine that I shouldn’t get into

Mormons do not believe in Muhammad as prophet. They believe in the Biblical prophets and the prophets of the restored Mormon church.

thank you for the explanation. most of the Mormons I work with are in their 20’s. I think the word “distrust” is the correct word describing how I feel around them. like they don’t trust me. I don’t know how many know I am catholic. one co-worker who just had a baby approached me the other day to complain about his motherinlaw who he finds annoying. he said she is 59 and the world revolves around her. then he threw in that the inlaws were catholic. he knows I am catholic. I thought his wife converted when they were married, but he said she had already left the catholic church and had become Mormon when he met her. so I don’t know if he feels threatened that the inlaws are catholic or if Mormons are taught anti-Catholicism. but the way he said they were catholic, he seemed to say it with disdain.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Having been Mormon and now not, I see what you are saying from both sides. It is true, there is an isolationism mindset. They will tell you it is not true, but then they are taught they have the “truth” and everyone else is being lead astray by Satan, so it foments distrust. My immediate family is the only non-Mormons on my side. When I announced my departure, I was censored - I was literally told to keep it to myself. Now they talk about Mormonism to a greater degree and I am expected to hold my tongue. As converts tend to do, I am on fire with love for The Lord and His church, but am incapable of addressing my family. It is a level of frustration that is quite irritating, particularly around holidays when I see them more. I keep drafting letters (which I never send) hoping to show them my life, me as a person, their two-faced attitudes, but I wave off as it turns into a novel. Some Mormons may not know their theology to the degree you’ve just read here, the “deeper” stuff mentioned above does not get a lot of press. That is sad also that you can’t hold a very effective conversation with most, cause the buck stops at their “testimony” - the subjective personal conviction that they are members of the “true” church. When facts, logic, reason, any of God’s gifts dispute/distract from their conviction, they will hit the “I Believe” button and claim you need to have faith, it’ll all make sense on the other side.

you are in a difficult situation. how long have you been catholic? I was wondering about how educated some Mormons are in the actual theology of Mormonism and all of the doctorines and beliefs.

 

[Janderich]

However the Lectures on Faith seem to not teach Joseph Smith’s later teaching that the Father is an exalted man. It states that the Father is a “personage of Spirit” (and makes a distinction between that and the Son being a “personage of tabernacle”). Many Latter-day Saints make the First Vision into a theological revelation, where the true nature of God the Father and Jesus Christ, as two separate, embodied, entities, was revealed. However, it seems as if Joseph Smith was not aware of the flesh and bone character of God until later (as well, the Lectures on Faith refer to the Godhead in a Binitarian fashion, with the Holy Ghost being the “mind” of the Father and Son).

eom.byu.edu/index.php/Lectures_on_Faith

I have come to find a great truth in this fifth lecture. It is regarding the Spirit but it is given by the Holy Ghost to those who are prepared to receive it.

We read that the Father is a personage of, “spirit, glory, and power” while the Son is a personage of tabernacle. After explaining Christ’s condescension we read that the Son also possesses, “spirit, glory, and power”. At the end it says, "As the Son partakes of the fullness of the Father through the Spirit, so the saints are, by the same Spirit, to be made partakers of the same fullness, to enjoy the same glory; for as the Father and the Son are one, so, in like manner, the saints are to be one in them.

There is no grand contradiction here, nor morphing of doctrine over time. The Father posses all spirit, glory, and power. The Son after his ascension also received the spirit, glory, and power. The saints are likewise some day to receive the same.

 

[TexanKnight]

Short answer, YES. Despite their understanding of the Trinity, they still believe in the same Jesus Christ, fully God and Man, that died on the cross at Calvary for our sins that we do. They are fully 100% Christian.

Here is a verse from the Book of Mormon that confirms this: (2 Nephi 25:26)

“And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.”

that is simply not true. They believe in a god who was once a sinful man and a “jesus” who is weak and dishonest.

 

[TexanKnight]

Sounds like you had an amazing experience. There have been some that have seen the Father, Joseph Smith being one. There have been others, some given in the Bible, but I suspect their discriptions will be rejected. Many more have seen the Son who is the express image of the Father (Heb 1:3).

lol…js did not see the father. And depending which of the many versions of his alleged vision you believe, it is unclear if he saw anyone…

 

[TexanKnight]

I have come to find a great truth in this fifth lecture. It is regarding the Spirit but it is given by the Holy Ghost to those who are prepared to receive it.

We read that the Father is a personage of, “spirit, glory, and power” while the Son is a personage of tabernacle. After explaining Christ’s condescension we read that the Son also possesses, “spirit, glory, and power”. At the end it says, "As the Son partakes of the fullness of the Father through the Spirit, so the saints are, by the same Spirit, to be made partakers of the same fullness, to enjoy the same glory; for as the Father and the Son are one, so, in like manner, the saints are to be one in them.

There is no grand contradiction here, nor morphing of doctrine over time. The Father posses all spirit, glory, and power. The Son after his ascension also received the spirit, glory, and power. The saints are likewise some day to receive the same.

lol…

so…js says in one place that God is a personage of Spirit, and in another that he has a body of flesh and bones and you do not see the contradiction.

of course you don’t…

 

[taylorf]

Many more have seen the Son who is the express image of the Father (Heb 1:3).

Like Martin Harris, one of the three [reliable] witnesses, who saw…

“…that Christ had been poised on a roof beam.”
“…the Lord Jesus Christ, who walked along by the side of him in the shape of a deer…”
“…Jesus Christ and that he is the handsomest man he ever did see. He has also seen the Devil, whom he described as a very sleek haired fellow with four feet, and a head like that of a Jack-***.”

No, Mormons aren’t Christians, and I don’t understand why they try so I hard to make people believe that they are. Even when I was active LDS, I knew Mormon doctrine conflicted with mainstream Christianity.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I have come to find a great truth in this fifth lecture. It is regarding the Spirit but it is given by the Holy Ghost to those who are prepared to receive it.

We read that the Father is a personage of, “spirit, glory, and power” while the Son is a personage of tabernacle. After explaining Christ’s condescension we read that the Son also possesses, “spirit, glory, and power”. At the end it says, "As the Son partakes of the fullness of the Father through the Spirit, so the saints are, by the same Spirit, to be made partakers of the same fullness, to enjoy the same glory; for as the Father and the Son are one, so, in like manner, the saints are to be one in them.

There is no grand contradiction here, nor morphing of doctrine over time. The Father posses all spirit, glory, and power. The Son after his ascension also received the spirit, glory, and power. The saints are likewise some day to receive the same.

I think it’s quite clear from studying LDS theology’s progression during the beginnings of the Restoration that there was an evolution in Joseph’s understanding of the Godhead (even FAIR apologists say as much in various articles). The LoF clearly make a distinction between the personage of spirit and personage of tabernacle. It refers to the Holy Ghost as the “mind” of the Father and the Son. In response to the question “How many personages are there in the Godhead”, it says “Two: the Father and the Son”. Clearly there is an evolution/“morphing” over time in Joseph’s understanding of the Godhead. We see that even with the Book of Mormon vs the Book of Abraham and how it refers to God (with the BoM emphasizing the unity of the three, to the point where it sometimes appears Modalistic, while the Book of Abraham many times refers to “Gods”, and Joseph later speaking of the “plurality of Gods”, “three Gods”, etc, which wasn’t demonstrated in the early days of the Restoration).